The Executive Committee has amended the language of their Article III Constitutional recommendation to the Southern Baptist Convention (which will come before the Convention tomorrow), changing the original language which defined churches deemed to be in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention as "those who do not operate in a manner which demonstrates opposition to the BFM 2000" to language which describes churches in friendly cooperation as those who have "a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention's adopted statement of faith."
So, in summary, the Executive Committee was going to recommend a Constitutional change which defined cooperating SBC churches as:
"...those who do not operate in a manner which demonstrates opposition to the BFM 2000."
Not anymore.
The new Executive Committee recommendation contains language which defines cooperating SBC churches as those which have:
"...a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention's adopted statement of faith."
The questions would be (1). Who makes the determination which church is or is not 'closely identifying' with the Convention's adopted statement of faith? Is it the association? Is it the State Convention? Is it a committee? (2). Why do we continue to feel the need to narrow the doctrinal parameters of our missionary cooperation? We separate much further from one another, those we once called brothers we will actually begin calling 'cousins.' Just wait.
More later.
7 comments:
Well, at least they changed it. Now they have to find someone who actually cares.
So long SBC, nice knowing you...save for last 15 years.
Wade,
How does the SBC define what is necessary for one to be recognized as a genuine brother/sister in Christ?
From this distance, it appears there's a lot of confusion about what the Bible says and what individuals believe.
There is an interesting report in the official Book of Reports from Southwestern Seminary.
Aussie John, I think your questions will be answered by that report. I hope to blog on it soon.
Scott: Amen.
Either way, as you state, the statement is meant to limit participating churches to those who affirm the 2000 BFM. The question you pose as to who would police such a thing is critical. My church affirms the 1963 BFM, so even though we send money to the Cooperative Program, the registrar would not seat people from my congregation as messengers to the convention? Why would we continue giving money to an organization that does not want to partner with us in Christian mission? That's the real question that a number of churches just like mine are already asking, even if the amendment doesn't pass this year. This moderate Baptist pastor will certainly grieve the loss of a 125 year partnership between my church and the SBC. On the other hand, maybe I should thank the Executive Committee. If the amendment passes, it will be 1000x easier for our church to make the decision to withdraw ALL Cooperative Program funds and funnel them towards Virginia Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Of course, who are we kidding, that's what the amendment was meant to do anyways.
Post a Comment